Does Christianity make a claim no other religion makes?

I have a question for you. If Jesus is God and not just some man-God, how can he be killed by men? Shouldn't God be able to withstand the punishments
upon him?

He willingly died, see the incident in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Yes, he could obviously have come down from the cross and destroyed the Romans, as the taunters at the crucifixion told him, but that wasn't the
plan. As the passage in Philippians that I posted earlier says, he humbled himself to death, even death upon a cross (pretty much the least respectful
form of death in that time.)

Jesus' body could obviously be killed, just as he hungered and thirsted like anyone else, because he was fully man, just as he was fully God. See
The Doctrine of the Incarnation, as espoused by the Early Church Fathers.

So you say that Jesus hungered, thirsted and was able to die but if he wished it he didn't have to worry about those things? But he's not a man-god
either? Sounds like a cop-out to a paradox to me.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "man-god" -- what's the definition of that term, and how is it contrasted by the definition of the Christian
incarnation that I posted earlier?

Oftentimes, such terms are used as a pejorative by non-believers, but I doubt that's your intent here, so you need to help me understand the
difference.

And to answer the first part, I'm not sure why you're missing the point of the passage in Philippians -- yes, Jesus didn't have to worry about
those things, but he humbled himself so that he did, in fact, have to worry about them.

Well what about when he was a child? I'm sure he ate and drank things through necessity then. What about as a baby? Didn't Mary breast feed him? Did
the baby make a conscious decision to eat and drink as well? It just doesn't make sense to me that as soon as Jesus learns that he is God incarnate
(as well as the son of God, however that works) he can now choose to not eat or drink things. Also, so for the 33 years that Jesus lived, did God not
tend to heaven or watch over the people of the world (obviously he didn't watch over those heathen Mayans, afterall they don't deserve salvation for
having the sin of being born on the other side of the world)? Was he entirely constrained to the mortal flesh? When Jesus prays, wouldn't he be
talking to himself?

The way it looks to me is that it was a story told to people in the hopes that they wouldn't look too deeply at the contradictions and when they did,
there were hastily slapped explanations thought up (and all not necessarily the same) to explain away the contradictions.

I mean couldn't it be that Jesus was just a wise teacher who said some good things, but through embellishment of his sermons and teachings developed a
huge cult of personality that elevated so close to God-hood that they just said he was God? It doesn't seem to far fetched to me, people today can't
even keep facts straight about events and we have the internet, tv, libraries, and more to verify the events.

Also, in the timeless, spaceless domain of the living Spirit of the Living God, whereby "time" as we think of it is an illusion of sorts and where we
can see, in the divine order of the earth, moon, sun, planets and stars that the evolution of man was intelligently selected beginning with the end in
mind as an outward manifest expression of the originating creative intent for the sake of love or of mutuality between a beloved and beloved other, in
what way was/is Jesus NOT God in the flesh, evolved, and more importantly INvolved, both within himself and within the overall context of the
brotherhood of man and the human condition, under or through, the fatherhood of God? What are we if not sons of God, and children of light, life and
love? And what kind of God is this who would enter into his own creation via the son of man and perform a great work set forth from the very origin of
creation? "What is man that thou art mindful of him?"

You see if Jesus is God "processed" for our own enjoyment, that not only is it possible for God in Spirit to fully sympathize with us as human beings,
but for us also to begin to fathom the nature of God's love for humanity and to truly love God in kind. Context and framing is everything, and the
meaning of communication is the response you get and what is evoked as a personal experience in mutual sympathetic harmony. Jesus in other words makes
of man a friend of God, but more importantly God a friend of mankind and a great lover of mankind, who figured out a way to get the point across
without at the same time violating our free will according to a level of ingenuity that we would never have even begun to consider for the life of us.

Not everyone has the capacity to recognize the signature of God, because of this entire notion of God as an entirely separative "entity" and not a
Spirit running through the whole of it all and informing the creation which is evolving through ever increasing degrees of self awareness and self
recognition, unto an epiphany in time and history and in the midst of the human condition from it's lowest depths to it's highest heights.

Jesus by being God, and being he who was who is and who is to come brackets human history, like a mother hen to her chicks, or a Shepherd leading the
sheepfold to a new pasture simply by the sound of his voice, which in Jesus case is also his character, his personality, his charm and his
unparalleled genius.

Let's make no mistake about it. To try to reduce the stature of Jesus Christ from that of the Spirit of the Living God, there is enmity and hatred
there, towards one's self and one's own low estimation of the value of the human being in creation, and that's both ignorant and absurd, and funny.

Why does no one trust Jesus, why does not one take him at his word and then have the courage and the audacity to accept what's being offered through
him.

The conservative fundamentalist evangelicals are actually quite right, in the final analysis, but for all the wrong reasons as their motive isn't
sound and is actually quite repugant, so it's understandable why people might at first glance shy away from the Jesus was/is God hypothesis /
doctrine, but when you finally come to realize the degree to which the joke is on them, too, for so reducing our value while elevating Jesus' well
then there's the humor of true understanding, amid the knowledge that Jesus really IS and was God, but for all the right reasons. To then
discover that he's invited us to the party of all ages whereby we ourselves as we are are the guest of honor, well then it's just too good to be true
and too much to take.

What we need therefore as Christians is more courage in our willingness to be assigned through Christ, a value of incalculable measure as sacred
beings and as children of a truly loving, understanding and sympathetic God who seeks to enjoy
koinonia with us, which is intimate, participatory, communion with.

Best Regards, and God Bless,

NAM aka Bob
Your brother, in Christ Jesus our common Lord and Savior, and true friend even yes as God since the Spirit never dies and is forever fully informed in
eternity even now.

It's pretty funny really, once we realize it and think it all the way through. We were so blind. Thank you Lord for helping us to see the light that
you were and are, and also wish to be in us, with us, and with us in you in Spirit, and Love.

The Roman government back then was no different from the governments today, they lied to people to keep them submissive. Just as (I believe) some
events and stories surrounding 9/11 were completely fabricated, so were some of the events and stories surrounding Jesus and his life. "Turn the other
cheek" and Romans 13 in particular were today's "terrorists" back then, a form of population control and propaganda.

Well what about when he was a child? I'm sure he ate and drank things through necessity then. What about as a baby? Didn't Mary breast feed him? Did
the baby make a conscious decision to eat and drink as well? It just doesn't make sense to me that as soon as Jesus learns that he is God incarnate
(as well as the son of God, however that works) he can now choose to not eat or drink things.

No, that's not what the Doctrine of the Incarnation says. Jesus existed, as God, from the beginning, there was never a time that he didn't exist. He
didn't need to become incarnate, as God, he didn't need food or water or run the risk of dying, but he chose to do that, chose to
humble himself to becoming a man who did need those things and who would die. That's the point of the incarnation and God being humble, a
unique claim among religions (so far as I can tell.)

Was he entirely constrained to the mortal flesh? When Jesus prays, wouldn't he be talking to himself?

That would be the [url=http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/what-is-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity]Doctrine of the Trinity, which
is probably too complicated to go into here, though I suppose that would be another unique aspect of Christianity.

I mean couldn't it be that Jesus was just a wise teacher who said some good things, but through embellishment of his sermons and teachings
developed a huge cult of personality that elevated so close to God-hood that they just said he was God?

The problem is that all evidences indicates that those who personally knew Jesus (the Apostles and other disciples) and were witness to the events
described in the Bible believed that he was more than just a wise teacher, worshipped him as God, and clearly believed that, at one point, he died,
was resurrected and they witnessed him being "taken up" (whatever that means.)

They believed it so much that 11 of the 12 Apostles were martyred rather than simply renounce their claims. It seems reasonable that one or two people
might have misunderstood things, or been crazy, or some other prosaic explanation, but eleven? If you knew that Jesus had faked his death, or had not
been resurrected, or hadn't done any miracles, doesn't it seem reasonable that, upon being taken to the Coliseum to be tossed to the lions or
beheaded or whatever, you'd just say "know what? Just kidding!" because that's all it took to let you off.

How could Jesus have been human if he wasn't under the human condition of sin? If he never sinned, he was not fully man because "all men sin".

How does God die? I thought he was the God of the living? If he died, does that mean he was no longer God for a short time? If he is eternal, he would
not be able to die, if he did die he is not truly eternal.

There are some glaringly big holes in the Doctrine of Incarnation. It contradicts itself when it comes to the crucifixion and original sin.

Watching 11 or 12 people be duped by a lie isn't really that remarkable. There are much larger groups of people who get duped like this by cult
leaders, some so much so that they will even commit mass suicide together. And yes, there are cults where they believe that their leader is a miracle
worker much like Jesus. Of course, most of what we know about these men was written in the bible. The bible is just one source. It could also be a
complete lie as well.

Maybe these people believed Jesus's (the wise teacher) teachings so much, which happened to clash with Roman and Jewish dogma to the point of them
getting mad, it resulted in getting them executed. Just like a cult of personality could develop around Jesus, the same can be said about his
entourage.

Oh YES, christianity, to the LARGEST parts is unique.
Please mind you that there are many, many denominations of christianity and I am not implying that ALL of them are similar.

What is the difference between christianity and SOME (not all!) religions?

The Abrahamic (sp?) religions are NOT beliefs or spiritual schools where transcendence or "self-discovery of god" are central.

(UNLIKE in some beliefs where techniques like Meditation etc. play a role to "find god", or "find the truth")

In Christianity, you get handed knowledge via 3rd hand, you do not EXPERIENCE. You simply take what a priest says (or what a teacher says, or what a
book says) and take it at face value.

Christianity/Church is actually opposing what we call "spirituality", the active, personal experience of god. In fact, Christianity calls experiences
like NDE etc. "of the devil". For them, it's MORE important that you "attend church" (like it matters) or read your books.

For many other beliefs, the EXPERIENCE is central. And of course, you can only "experience" god yourself, even with so simple things as walking in
nature etc. AS OPPOSED TO listening to some old fart priest. Insofar, Christianity is actually denying the real "god experience", it is actively
pursuing that people do NOT find god.

Jesus can be found in the Gospels. The man, his voice, his character, his philosophy, his heart, mind and Spirit.

Context and framing is everything, and Jesus Magnum Opus represents among other things the true measure of a man.

I wish people would come to understand how magnificent, how beautiful, and, how funny it is.

Not only are we blind but we lack the humor of understanding, which is really sad, but funny on the other side of the sad, pathetic aspect, in
recognition as to the true meaning and significance of it in both its export with respect to what's been communicated, and import in regards to what
it makes available to us and what we are given to access to, as a result.

Heck of a gift to just throw away, in ignorance and with contempt, prior to investigation..

The Gospels? You mean the books in the bible? The thing that was written years after Jesus' death? Yea there is no way that the stories in the New
Testament (just like the Old Testament) aren't exaggerated is there (insert eye rolling emoticon)?

I mean I'm questioning the authenticity of Jesus and his apostles (as written about in the bible) and you cite the bible as a countersource

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not trying convert you, I honestly don't care what you believe or don't. You asked a question about Christian doctrine,
and I explained it.

As for whether the Bible is just a bunch of lies; as it is the only real source of information about Christ, written by those contemporary to him, if
one wishes to says "it's just a load of bollocks anyway", then there is no point in discussing it, because without that text, there's really
nothing to discuss.

Both Islam and Judaism make the claim that what gains you Heaven is your works.

Particularly in Islam which is very big on works and intention at least of works.

Faith alone really is only a Christian concept.

Um, Christianity requires works too. You can't just have faith alone, but continue to murder, rape, steal, lie, cheat, ect. Thus, one would have to
take action as well, in otherwords, good living. Hell, many subsets of Christianity believe you need good works to back up the faith. As well as the
fact that both Islam and Judism require more than just good works, one has to have faith as well.

The fact that Christianity has a heaven and hell further reduces its uniqueness. Many religions have heaven and hell. However, a few do not.

If you want to base a religion on uniqueness, try Buddhism.

1. In Buddhism there are no gods to pay homage to.
2. There is no heaven and hell after life.
3. There is no original sin to be forgiven of.
4. It questions existence itself.
5. The path to enlightenment involves meditation and contemplation, looking inward and outward at the atomic level.
6. Good works/bad works are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

If I believed by faith alone, my door knob will save me from damnation, then I have a religion based on faith alone.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.